HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 5904 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Mr. Pawan Kumar Mishra learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties. 2. The above petition has been filed challenging order dated 31.12.2024 whereby pay-scale made admissible to petitioner was revised on ground that he was inadmissible to him. Order pertaining to recovery/adjustment of such excess payments has also been passed and is under challenge. 3. From aforesaid material on record, it is evident that petitioner belongs to Class III category of employee and impugned order has been passed withdrawing pay-scales which were made admissible to them long time ago. Ex-facie, impugned order has been passed merely on the basis of audit report(s) without providing any opportunity of hearing to petitioners. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that the aforesaid aspect, pertaining to impugned orders, is squarely covered by judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. 5. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that prior to passing of impugned orders, requiring recovery or deduction from salary, no Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pawan Kumar Mishra, Suryakant Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Vijay Kumar Shukla .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Police Anubhag Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) opportunity of hearing was provided to petitioners nor is there any allegation that incorrect pay-fixation or excessive payments in lieu thereof were either at the behest of petitioners or upon fraud or misrepresentation perpetrated by them. 6. In view thereof, this Court finds the present dispute squarely covered by judgment in State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih(supra), which is in the following terms:- "18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover." 7. Having regard to above, the impugned order dated 31.12.2024 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature Certiorari granting liberty to opposite party to pass orders afresh with regard to pay-fixation but only after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner and considering his reply. Since petitioner pertain to Class III category, as enunciated by State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih(supra), any deduction or adjustment of salary made from petitioners or recovery made are required to be refunded to them within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon authority concerned. The decision shall be taken by authority concerned in light of Government Order dated 16.01.2007. WRIA No. 5904 of 2025 2 8. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. November 26, 2025 prabhat WRIA No. 5904 of 2025 3 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench